Beehaw is quite toxic and for that reason, lemmy.world is not federated. I expect an angry swarm of people from Beehaw to send me death threats now to prove how untoxic they are.

I’m not really sure I understand what you’re arguing here. That reusable rockets are easy to build as long as the government gives one some land to use? If that were true we would have had reusable rockets many decades ago.

I can confirm it’s resolving rt.com. I’ve tested on two ISPs here in Denmark and both block the domain. I’m wondering if there are regional differences in the legislation or edicts.

I work in IT so I can confidently inform you that the vast majority of people do not change their DNS providers. Very few people would know how. Recall that my comment above is not about how easy circumventing censorship is, it was about the censorship existing at all, and how the EU would censor results in a search engine they create.

It’s a perfectly valid ideological divide here, so I can’t tell you you’re “wrong.” I would argue that in order to believe that democracy is valid, one must subscribe to the belief in individual agency. That is, the ability for people to make rational decisions about not only themselves, but their society. If one believes that, they should believe that the same people must have access to as much knowledge as they wish - especially if it’s from the guys who oppose the current people in power. Democracy fails to function if the people in power can suppress criticism.

That’s a fair and nuanced take. You’re right that there should be some exceptions for illegal content, but my line is clearly much further into the freedom spectrum than the EU has drawn that line. To roll up to my original claim: they would immediately ban many sites on any search engine they created, and they would do so for many reasons I am uncomfortable with.

I have whiplash. You’ve gone from an implied “that’s not happening” to “okay so it’s happening, and here’s why it’s a good thing!” Why feign ignorance if you knew that I was correct?

I don’t believe any government has the right to restrict which books and news sites I should be allowed to access. I think I am the best person to decide which knowledge I should have access to.

rt.com is blocked for me. If you can access it and you’re based in the EU it means you’re using a foreign DNS provider like 1.1.1.1 or 8.8.8.8.

I understand well the arguments used by governments to restrict access to books and websites. I reject them. I believe I am the best person to decide which knowledge I am allowed to access. I am certainly far more qualified than the government.

No I mean actual censorship. For example, RT and Sputnik. They have also banned PressTV and CGTN. They suspended broadcast licenses for EADaily / Eurasia Daily, Fondsk, Lenta, NewsFront, RuBaltic, SouthFront, Strategic Culture Foundation, and Krasnaya Zvezda / Tvzvezda. All of these sites would be explicitly banned from any EU based search engine.

Note that I am not giving American tech companies a free pass here. Google is one of the worst.

Also note that “censorship” doesn’t exclusively refer to government censorship. That is an American-centric perspective using the Constitution as the lens. Censorship is often conducted by individuals and organisations. In this case I am referring to the EU.

The EU has made numerous moves towards restricting free speech and communication over the last decade, especially in the technology space. These include:

1. Digital Services Act (DSA) (2022)

• The DSA imposes strict regulations on large online platforms and search engines (such as Google and Meta).

• Requires platforms to remove “illegal content” quickly, though the definition of illegal content varies by country.

• Mandates content moderation transparency but can pressure platforms to suppress speech preemptively.

• Enables regulators to demand access to platform algorithms and recommend content moderation changes.

• Forces messaging apps like WhatsApp and Signal to comply with EU orders, potentially compromising end-to-end encryption.

2. Digital Markets Act (DMA) (2022)

• Primarily aimed at tech monopolies, but also affects search engines and app stores.

• Limits the ability of platforms to rank their own services higher (e.g., Google prioritizing its own results).

• Forces companies like Apple to open up iMessage to other messaging services, potentially impacting security.

3. Terrorist Content Online Regulation (2021)

• Requires platforms to remove flagged terrorist content within one hour or face heavy fines.

• No clear appeals process, raising concerns about automatic censorship by algorithms.

• Governments can demand removals across all EU member states, limiting national sovereignty over content moderation.

4. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (2018)

• Although GDPR focuses on privacy, it has been used to delist certain search results (right to be forgotten).

• Some critics argue that GDPR can be weaponized to suppress critical information about public figures.

5. Copyright Directive (2019) – Article 17 (formerly Article 13)

• Requires platforms to filter copyrighted content before it is uploaded.

• Forces platforms like YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook to proactively block content using automated filters, which often lead to false positives and excessive censorship.

• Criticized for making memes and satire more difficult to share due to automated copyright enforcement.

6. EU Code of Practice on Disinformation (2018, revised 2022)

• Although voluntary at first, compliance with fact-checking and disinformation policies is now mandatory under the DSA.

• Forces social media companies to demonetize or downrank “misinformation,” often without clear definitions.

• Involves close cooperation with government-backed fact-checkers, raising concerns about political bias.

7. Chat Control Legislation (Proposed in 2022)

• Requires messaging platforms (e.g., WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal) to scan private messages for child abuse content.

• Critics argue this destroys end-to-end encryption, making all private communication vulnerable.

• Could lead to mass surveillance under the guise of child protection.

8. Political Ads Transparency Act (2023)

• Requires all online political ads to be labeled and traceable.

• Platforms must track funding sources, but unclear definitions of political content could impact activism and independent journalism.

• Could be used to limit grassroots campaigns that lack formal funding structures.

9. Media Freedom Act (2023)

• Gives the EU more oversight over media ownership and state influence on journalism.

• Some journalists worry it could be used to pressure media outlets to align with EU narratives.

These are just the laws. There have been uncounted statements by EU leaders about greater control over the kind of information they wish to allow transmitted in the EU. All of these Acts are rooted in good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. At minimum, a significant portion of the results in the test list above would be banned under existing legislation.

I use Kagi because of their strong stance against censorship. If I want to find information about controversial topics, I expect my search engine to give me the results it has crawled. I use this community test list to determine if they’re censoring results. Most search engines fail this now. I imagine any EU search engine will fail this on day one.

Eutelsat

Eutelsat has about 9% the number of satellites and Starlink is expanding fast. This significantly limits the potential backhaul, which is why Eutelsat doesn’t really focus on consumers, but rather governments and enterprise. They don’t have the backhaul to offer wide consumer products. Their cost of launch is 10x higher than Starlink, at least, so they’ll never be able to compete in backhaul or the consumer space. Of course they could contract SpaceX to launch their satellites, but then they’re basically paying the competition to operate, and this power imbalance would be immediately leveraged to their detriment.

The bottom line here is that competitors need reusable rockets, and no one else is even close. However Musk put together the company and strategy pushed space transport forward by decades in a very short space of time, and it’s unlikely another Musk figure emerges in Europe. I do not subscribe to the common notion that if we throw enough money at the problem we can solve it. Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin confirms this. It appears to require an appetite for extreme risk; the will to blow up hundreds of expensive rockets; and likely a penchant for the disregard of existing safety laws. The EU would never permit this.